Do Christian's not understand "Burden of Proof"?

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
Johnathan Graham's picture
Do Christian's not understand "Burden of Proof"?

So, I've debated a lot of christians and religious people. It's been a good ride so far, some had interesting dialogue, but most of them were just angered debates. Though, on all of them, I realized a lot of the people didn't understand the concept of "Burden of Proof". Its to the point where its getting quite repetitive for something that would be at the basis of their claim.

It's essential when somebody makes a claim, to have the evidence to back it up. But, when Christian's(Mind you, I reference Christianity specifically for the reason its the most common religion in my country, almost all religions are usually included in this as well). They make a claim, they need the evidence. But, usually they just provide faith to it and call it a day. Or the one I get is "He exists, and thats that." With no evidence or even rebuttal at all. The amount of fallacy's when debating a religious person or zealot is absurd.

Anybody have some experiences like this? Please do share.
Thank you, have a nice day.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

D_Trimijopulos's picture
So, from what you are saying,

So, from what you are saying, believers refuse the burden of proof but you accept it. Am I right?
Believers have all the proof they want (Bible, Prophets etc) and they are quite satisfied with what they have got. If their proof is no good for you, you have to prove it false, and to do it, you will have to bear the burden of proof.

_Can you do it? Can you debunk the claim “There is God”?
_ I do not think you can, otherwise you would not have to repeat again that agnostic sophistry according to which all the others should bear the burden but not the agnostics. :-)

Johnathan Graham's picture
I said proof, maybe I should

I said proof, maybe I should elaborate on the requirement of evidence. Though, I do believe, I did not state "Beliefs". Evidence is required in a debate, religious claims such as the bible or prophets do not provide that, therefore, universally, they are not proof.

Andrew McArthur's picture
You may as well argue kittens

You may as well argue kittens with a Podiatrist. The faithful don't understand the burden of proof and the atheists don't understand the burdens of faith. I am not an agnostic. I cannot scientifically disprove the existence of any gods, but there's no chance I'm suddenly going to start running around "believing in things" just because I can't prove they don't exist. If anyone of us is going to get through to the faithful, we are going to need a better argument. Rest assured, if Sisyphus had been allowed the sweet release death, boredom would have been his weapon of choice.

Thredder's picture
That reminds me of a song by

That reminds me of a song by the fabulous Tim Minchin - The Good Book.

New here so not sure if I can put links, but - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bPc9xW_eDU

I know the Good Book is a Good Book because it tells me so.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
yep never seen this song

yep never seen this song before

True
The only reason why the bible is considered a holy book is because it says so.

ThePragmatic's picture
Then this is proof as well

Then this is valid proof as well:
https://emergegently.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/386003_1015050440350097...
"The Church of the Holy Napkin"

Pitar's picture
A burden is exactly what they

A burden is exactly what they are avoiding by ascribing to faith. If you start with that realization you'll save yourself a lot of needless ciphering about the faithful. They're looking for the easy way out and what better path to follow than one that demands nothing of them?

Today I spoke with a co-worker who truly believes there was a man who died on a cross for the sins of mankind. There's no burden of proof he feels is necessary to present. It just happened, in his mind, and he simply cannot be budged from that thought. A nice guy, he's very comfortable and sure of the savior theme. To me it's pointless to debate that so I won't.

Darkhenoc1's picture
Why did jesus ascend to

Why did jesus ascend to heaven? Because these ignorant people that wrote the bible really believed heaven was I the clouds. He should have just disappeared. And you want to claim that the bible is all the proof people need? If all you have is an ignorant book to go by, you really don't have anything.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.